It doesn't help that this particular web site does not give the
impression that he knows what he's talking about. Plate tectonics,
conventional views on planetary formation, etc. are "the Pangea
theory". The description of the relationship of continental and
oceanic crust is garbled (even though it sounds as though he means to
accept the known features thereof, apart from subduction zones).
"that the shoe-maker levy planets killer that struck Jupiter. Twenty
one of them?" is not even grammatically clear, much less suggestive of
having a clue about the impact of Comet Shoemaker-Levy into Jupiter
(one comet broke into multiple pieces, which is not supportive of the
way he seems to be trying to use this in his argument). "colondrite
meteorites. Condrite meteorites are assembled from mineral dust and
pencil tip tiny meteorites called chondrules. More importantly,
chondrite "... Sounds more like chond wrongs to me. A plasma at the
core of the earth is also remarkable; such was not recorded by Verne
or Burroughs, but their accounts have less imagination than the
present one.

There's the claim that having Pangea on one side of the earth and just
ocean on the other side makes the one side way heavier because rock is
much denser than water. The mass of the earth's mantle and core
conveniently vanished for this calculation.

"The fact is most, if not all, the mountains on Earth were created
since 200 million years ago, and most of them are 60 million years old
and younger."

This isn't a fact, unless one accepts his claim that "they" are all
liars. However, he immediately goes on to claim no mountains existed
before 65 million, contradicting himself as well as the geologic
record.

There are all sorts of regions of rock that clearly came from
elsewhere (fossils, rock types, etc.), currently squashed up against
each other (known as terranes). This includes the bits of ancient
seafloor mentioned already.
Such collisions don't seem to fit well with his model.

The claim that conventional views say that material that eventually
made the protostellar disk, etc. for the solar system piled up over 9
billion years and then suddenly stopped turning up is incorrect,
too-there's neither any reason to assume constant rates of
accumulation nor has the inflow of material stopped.

No time now for me to discover how all the problems of paleontology
are solved. I haven't even figured out how an expanding earth tells
me what species I have pieces of, much less what the answer will be.

There are a couple of interesting parallels with other doubtful
science. His claim of no old mountains is paralleled by a claim of no
mountains before the Flood in some YEC literature, and his appeal to
symmetry brings to mind some 1800's and earlier views. Not sure that
there's any causal connections, though.

--
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.